The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected Mark Gooch’s appeal on April 13, 2023, affirming his convictions for first-degree murder, kidnapping, and misdemeanor theft in the death of Mennonite Sunday school teacher Sasha Krause, along with his sentence of life in prison without parole.1Justia. State v. Gooch Division One of the court, ruling in an unpublished memorandum decision, worked through each of Gooch’s three grounds for reversal and found none of them warranted disturbing the jury’s verdict.
Gooch, a former Airman 1st Class assigned to the 56th Equipment Maintenance Squadron at Luke Air Force Base, was 22 when he was sentenced on January 19, 2022, in Coconino County Superior Court.2Office of Special Investigations. Airman Gets Life Sentence for Murder, Kidnapping Krause had been abducted in January 2020 from a Mennonite community in New Mexico and shot in the back of the head; her body was found roughly 270 miles away at Sunset Crater National Monument in Arizona.
The Three Arguments Gooch Raised
Gooch’s appeal did not attack the cell tower evidence or text messages that anchored the state’s case at trial. He instead argued that the prosecutor’s conduct during trial denied him a fair proceeding, that the prosecutor misstated the legal standard for premeditation during closing argument, and that the Arizona superior court had no jurisdiction over the misdemeanor theft charge because the taking occurred in New Mexico.1Justia. State v. Gooch
Prosecutorial Misconduct Claims
The defense identified three lines of prosecutorial conduct as the basis for reversal. The prosecutor emphasized a “stark moral contrast” between Gooch and Krause, which the defense characterized as an appeal to jury emotion rather than proof of the charges. The prosecutor also commented on Gooch’s truthfulness and, in the defense’s view, vouched for the reliability of the state’s evidence. Finally, the defense argued the prosecutor improperly attacked the role of defense counsel itself.1Justia. State v. Gooch
The Court of Appeals found no reversible error in any of these categories. It treated the “moral contrast” remarks as fair rebuttal to the defense’s own portrayal of Gooch as a “peaceful, nonviolent person.” It held that the prosecutor’s comments about evidence reliability did not amount to improper vouching, and that criticism directed at specific defense trial tactics was not the same as denigrating the institutional role of defense counsel. The panel added that the trial judge had instructed the jury that attorney arguments are not evidence, an instruction the court viewed as sufficient to address any residual concern.1Justia. State v. Gooch
The Premeditation Argument
First-degree murder in Arizona requires proof that the defendant intended or knew their conduct would cause death and acted with premeditation.3Arizona Legislature. Arizona Revised Statutes Title 13 Criminal Code 13-1105 Premeditation is a higher bar than intent alone; it requires reflection on the decision before acting. Gooch argued the prosecutor blurred that distinction in closing argument, effectively lowering the burden of proof.
The Court of Appeals acknowledged the point in part, noting that the prosecutor “seemed to conflate intent with reflection” during closing. But it ruled the misstatement did not rise to fundamental error. The trial court had given the jury an accurate written instruction defining premeditation as proof that Gooch intended to kill Krause and “reflected on the decision before killing” her, and the appellate panel concluded that written instruction cured any confusion the closing argument might have introduced.1Justia. State v. Gooch
The Theft Jurisdiction Argument
The misdemeanor theft charge covered Krause’s personal property, including a head covering and undergarments she was wearing when she was taken. Because the abduction happened in New Mexico, Gooch argued the theft was complete outside Arizona and the Coconino County court had no authority to try it.
The Court of Appeals rejected the challenge. Arizona law establishes jurisdiction when the conduct making up any element of the offense, or the result of that conduct, occurs within the state. Gooch discarded Krause’s body and permanently deprived her of her property in Arizona, and the panel held that this consequence gave Arizona courts authority over the charge.1Justia. State v. Gooch
What Comes Next After the Affirmance
With the direct appeal denied, Gooch’s remaining paths for review narrow considerably. A defendant may file a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court within 30 days of a Court of Appeals decision, but that review is discretionary rather than a matter of right. The court generally accepts cases where no existing Arizona decision controls the legal question, where Court of Appeals decisions conflict, or where an important legal issue has been decided incorrectly.4New York Codes, Rules and Regulations. Rule 23 – Petition for Review
If the Arizona Supreme Court declines review or affirms, the direct appeal is over. The primary remaining state avenue is a petition for post-conviction relief under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32, filed back in the original trial court. Rule 32 can raise issues such as newly discovered evidence, ineffective assistance of counsel, or constitutional violations that were not or could not have been raised on direct appeal. A defendant convicted after trial must follow the Rule 32 process by filing a notice and then a formal petition supported by facts, court records, and legal argument, and the deadlines are strict enough that missing them can result in denial regardless of merit.5Arizona Judicial Branch. Post-Conviction Relief
Beyond state court, a defendant who has exhausted state remedies may seek federal habeas corpus review. That path is narrow, limited to claims that the state court’s decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. Given how methodically the Court of Appeals addressed each of Gooch’s arguments, that standard would be a difficult one to satisfy.